It's "Shithole" vs. "Shithouse": Don't Bet on a Government Shutdown this Week

The basis for Trump's claims that Senator Dick Durbin lied about the profanity the president used in a White House meeting last week on DACA apparently -- and unbelievably -- boils down to "shithole" versus "shithouse." According to a fine story, "As Shutdown Talk Rises, Trump’s Immigration Words Pose Risks for Both Parties," by Jonathan Martin, Michael Shear and Sheryl Gay Stolberg:

. . . Mr. Durbin, who told local reporters in Illinois on Monday that he stood by his account of Thursday’s meeting with the president.

“I know what happened. I stand behind every word I said,” he said, adding that he is focused on the immigration legislation “full time.”

A White House official who spoke on condition of anonymity suggested on Monday that Mr. Trump had said “shithouse countries,” not “shithole countries.” Mr. Durbin expressed disbelief that anyone would see a substantive difference between the terms.

“I stick with my original interpretation. I am stunned that this is their defense,” he said.

Two Republican officials independently said on Monday that Mr. Trump had said the original phrase.

 A government shutdown looms by the end of the week if a deal can't be reached on the Dreamers:

Mr. Short [Marc Short, White House legislative director] said the current proposal devised by Mr. Graham and Mr. Durbin did not do enough to satisfy the president’s demands for enhanced border security. And, he said, it failed to broadly end what Republicans call “chain migration,” a process by which American citizens can eventually bring their extended families into the United States over a period of many years.

Mr. Short argued that the current proposal would actually increase the ability of DACA recipients to bring some family members into the country since, under their current legal status, they are barred from sponsoring entry for anyone else.

“Their proposal only expands chain migration for that group,” he said.

Under pressure from immigrant rights activists, Democrats are likely to resist broader efforts to limit immigrants from sponsoring their family members, an idea that Democrats view favorably as “family reunification” — a part of American immigration law for decades.

Mr. Short also urged Democrats to put off efforts to address immigrants from Haiti, Honduras, El Salvador and other countries who have been in the United States under a program called Temporary Protected Status. The Graham-Durbin plan called for issuing new visas for those immigrants after the Trump administration said they would end T.P.S. status for people from those countries.

“I don’t think we envision it as part of this deal,” Mr. Short said of the T.P.S. program. “That expands it into comprehensive immigration reform.”

And then there is the wall. Trump wants any deal on DACA to include funds for his beautiful wall along the southern border.

DACA negotiations are splitting both parties, but the Democrats more so. It's 2016 all over again, the social democrats versus the neoliberals:

For Democratic lawmakers, the pressure from their left flank to demand relief for the Dreamers is only rising.

“We are going to be telling Democrats the following: If you vote for a spending bill that does not include relief for Dreamers, you are voting for funds that will be used to deport Dreamers,” said Frank Sharry, executive director of America’s Voice, an immigrants rights group.

But the wisdom of eventually forcing a shutdown to shield the migrants is dividing the party.

Some Democratic strategists, such as former Representative Steve Israel of New York, said Democrats should seize their leverage now that Republicans already have enough political headaches, namely the president’s historic unpopularity.

“They absolutely have the upper hand as a matter of policy and as also as a matter of politics,” said Mr. Israel. “Republicans cannot afford to shut down the government in one of the roughest midterm environments they’ve ever had. Democrats have the upper hand and they should play the upper hand.”

Yet to other Democrats, forcing a government shutdown in the same fashion that congressional Republicans did in President Barack Obama’s second term would be to take a considerable political risk, the legislative equivalent of the nuclear option.

“It looks like a big Washington mess to people,” said David Axelrod, Mr. Obama’s former top strategist. “Dealing with Trump is obviously a very, very difficult issue not just for Democrats but for Republicans because he is so mercurial and unreliable. The question is: Have you reached that point now where you want to employ what is the most explosive tool in your toolbox?”

Or as Ms. McCaskill put it: “I am not interested in drawing a line in sand as negotiations continue because I think that’s how negotiations get blown up.”

The Axelrod quote makes it clear that a government shutdown is unlikely. As Martin et al. write earlier in the story:

Ten Democratic senators are on the ballot this November in states that are heavily white, have little sympathy for undocumented immigrants and that Mr. Trump won. Many of these lawmakers have no desire to force a government shutdown over an immigration issue. Some of the party’s most at-risk seats are in Missouri, Indiana, West Virginia and North Dakota.

If they side with Senate Republicans, Congress could pass yet another short-term spending bill by Friday that would end the shutdown threat for now as negotiations continue.

 At this point it is all about those midterms. Democrats, with the exception of potential presidential candidates angling for 2020, are hugging the center line in the belief that 2018 is going to be a wave election when the mythical white suburban moderate -- the one who didn't vote for Hillary -- will come to the polls to cast a ballot for the Democrat. So don't expect a government shutdown this week.